5 ms·

To be clear, I'm not necessarily arguing that it's advantageous. I'm arguing that his experience does not qualify as a liberal arts education, and he shouldn't

To be clear, I'm not necessarily arguing that it's advantageous. I'm arguing that his experience does not qualify as a liberal arts education, and he shouldn't criticize it at such. You seem to place his experience into a second category: >as opposed to receiving a generalized American-style "liberal arts education" (referring to the uniquely American method of having a core curriculum and general education requirements) Neither a core curriculum nor general education requirements qualify an education as "liberal." At least, they shouldn't. The liberal arts are subjects, first and foremost. The humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences. Their power lies in their great history of consideration throughout civilization, their prevailing and constant influence on the affairs of the world, and the nuanced questions that lie at their center. The liberal arts are inherently inter-disciplinary, and thus invite exposure to more than one. Moreover, the "teaching" of the liberal arts is far different than "research" in the liberal arts, a point often missed in larger university settings. If they are not taught well, you're not receiving an education of any sort. I'm not criticizing Nelson's education, or at least, don't mean to. But what he's criticizing is not what he thinks. It may be that pre-professional economics degrees normally do impart critical thinking skills. Nelson seems to think they don't. I don't really care; what I know is that these requirements don't meet the demands of the liberal arts: http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/undergrad/academic-excellence/flexible-curriculum.cfm http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/undergrad/academic-excellence/f...

argonaut 13y ago
An element of your argument relies on defining a liberal arts education in a specific way that is by no means the accurate or sole definition. American schools are quite unique in that, as opposed to universities in the UK, there is something called a "liberal arts education," which in that context is taken to mean the concept of a core curriculum / general education requirements. There is no reason that a liberal arts education as you define it is inherently interdisciplinary, there is no reason that whatever advantages you claim stem from interdisciplinary studied is not covered under a core curriculum definition of liberal arts. Nelson seems to think they don't. You're seriously misinterpreting what he says about how modern degrees don't impart critical thinking skills. His criticism is directed at Ivy League educations in general - not only pre-professional degrees but also liberal arts degrees: "I didn't have habits of mind that a liberal arts education was supposed to have given me. And not only did I not have it, none of my other colleagues had it—people who had graduated from Princeton and Harvard and Yale." It bears noting that Harvard has no pre-professional degrees except engineering (no business degree); it's clear his criticism is drawn out of his disappointment that a liberal arts education was supposed to give him and his colleagues critical thinking skills, but failed to do so. Furthermore, the instant I looked at the link you posted, I could already tell that that wasn't actually the degree requirements for Wharton (I could tell that those were the requirements for a major but not for graduation). So that's a really poor example. The full degree and graduation requirements are listed here: https://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/advising/curriculum/requirements.cfm https://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/advising/curricul...

argonaut 13y ago

An element of your argument relies on defining a liberal arts education in a specific way that is by no means the accurate or sole definition. American schools are quite unique in that, as opposed to universities in the UK, there is something called a "liberal arts education," which in that context is taken to mean the concept of a core curriculum / general education requirements. There is no reason that a liberal arts education as you define it is inherently interdisciplinary, there is no reason that whatever advantages you claim stem from interdisciplinary studied is not covered under a core curriculum definition of liberal arts. Nelson seems to think they don't. You're seriously misinterpreting what he says about how modern degrees don't impart critical thinking skills. His criticism is directed at Ivy League educations in general - not only pre-professional degrees but also liberal arts degrees: "I didn't have habits of mind that a liberal arts education was supposed to have given me. And not only did I not have it, none of my other colleagues had it—people who had graduated from Princeton and Harvard and Yale." It bears noting that Harvard has no pre-professional degrees except engineering (no business degree); it's clear his criticism is drawn out of his disappointment that a liberal arts education was supposed to give him and his colleagues critical thinking skills, but failed to do so. Furthermore, the instant I looked at the link you posted, I could already tell that that wasn't actually the degree requirements for Wharton (I could tell that those were the requirements for a major but not for graduation). So that's a really poor example. The full degree and graduation requirements are listed here: https://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/advising/curriculum/requirements.cfm https://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/advising/curricul...